Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Mishra vs Ms.Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki on 24 February, 2009
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
(vii) "Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, 2009 (2) SCC 513"
V.D.Jhangan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1966
19. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that since the cheque in
dispute is on record, therefore, there is a presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act in
favour of the complainant and against the accused regarding existence of
valid consideration amount of the cheque amount. Ld. Counsel for the
accused has stated that the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act is a rebutable
presumption and the accused by leading the positive evidence and
showing the contradictions in the testimony of the complainant has been
able to rebut the presumption. It is a well settled law that to rebut a
presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act the accused has to prove his case based
on the principles of preponderance of probability. The accused is not
under duty to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. On this issue I
have relied upon. "V.D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966
SC 1762" wherein it was held:
Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973
I have also placed reliance on another judgment passed by
three Judge Bench titled as "Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(1973)2 SCC 806: AIR 1973 SC 2773" wherein it has been held:
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
(i) "Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Duttatraya G. Hegde, JT. 2008
(1) SC 485"